Early feedback is that all three pilots have been well received
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is considering whether to extend the costs budgeting ‘lite’ pilot after receiving a proposal to extend it to the Business and Property Courts (BPC) in Newcastle (pictured) and Liverpool.
The pilot under practice direction 51ZG1 began on 6 April 2025 in the Leeds, Manchester and Rolls Building BPCs, and for business and property work in the Leeds, Manchester and Central London county courts.
According to the newly released minutes of the CPRC’s October meeting, Mr Justice Fancourt – the supervising judge for the BPCs on the Northern and North-Eastern Circuits – proposed the geographical extension “to improve regional accessibility for users”.
The minutes noted that the three costs budgeting pilots launched this year “have been well received by local district judges and practitioners who attended a Leeds BPC Forum seminar in the summer”; CPRC member Her Honour Judge Kelly, the designated civil judge for Birmingham, indicated a similar impression from court users in her area.
The minutes continued: “The committee was conscious to avoid revising a pilot prematurely and to risk unintended consequences. It was felt the matter would benefit from further consideration. The current pilot(s) were consciously contained within a specific group of pilot court centres; if the argument for expanding its scope held weight, it may also be appropriate to extend it more widely or even nationwide.”
The CPRC decided to conduct further consultation within the judiciary, obtain any data from the current pilot courts and then discuss the matter again.
In essence, PD 51ZG1 requires all parties except litigants in person to file and serve a simplified costs budget by no later than 21 days before the first case management conference.
Where the claim has a value of £1m or more, the court will not manage the costs unless satisfied that a costs management order is needed to conduct the litigation justly and at proportionate cost, and even then ideally using the simplified budget.
Where the value is less than £1m, the court will usually make a costs management order by reference to the simplified budget.
In a separate discussion, the lacuna sub-committee reported a request that interpreter fees be included as a recoverable disbursement in small claims on the grounds of vulnerability.
The minutes said: “The discussion identified various complexities requiring further investigation before it could be considered further. Some, if not all, of the issues identified were also likely to require policy consideration by [Ministry of Justice].
“The issues included: the basis of the existing rationale; the previous costs related consultations on vulnerability and the Court of Appeal judgment in Aldred v Cham; proportionality; costs capping and whether to particularise the factors which contribute to parties being on an equal footing.”
It was agreed that this information would be gathered to take on the discussion. Costs Lawyer Ian Curtis-Nye, who is a member of the CPRC, was one of those tasked with overseeing it.